Dataset Information

The use of personal and indoor air pollution monitors in reproductive epidemiology studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Personal and indoor air pollution monitors represent two ways to assess acute air pollution exposures; however, few reproductive epidemiology studies have incorporated these tools.

Objective

To provide an overview of the unique challenges and opportunities that arise when measuring acute exposure to air pollution in two ongoing reproductive epidemiology studies.

Methods

The Air Pollution, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), and Reproductive Outcomes (AIR) Study recruits women undergoing IVF to wear a personal particulate matter (PM) air pollution monitor (AirBeam2©) for the 72-hour period following the start of controlled ovarian stimulation. The Reproductive Effects of Chemicals and Air Pollutants (RECAP) Study recruits men across the United States to place an air pollution monitor (emmET) in their home for 3 months, use a smartphone application, and provide a semen sample. We highlight the key issues identified in implementing exposure assessment for both studies.

Results

The main advantages of using the AirBeam2© personal monitor are as follows: (a) the low cost, (b) the ability to collect multiple size fractions of PM data every second, (c) the portability, (d) its capability to track GPS location, and (e) the ability for the participant to observe their real-time exposure information. The limited battery life, incompatibility with iOS-based smartphones, and frequent connection issues that arise between the AirBeam2© and smartphone are the main disadvantages. The main advantages of the emmET are the ability to measure multiple air pollutants at a high level of accuracy, collect data for a long period of time without burdening the participant, and ship monitors to participants around the country without the need for in-person set-up by trained technicians; however, the monitor only measures the indoor home environment.

Conclusions

Novel methods can be utilised to characterise short-term air pollution exposure in reproductive epidemiology studies and represent an exciting area for future research.

SUBMITTER: Gaskins AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7145751 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mobile phones have a large spectrum of applications, aiding in risk prevention and improving health and wellbeing of their owners. So far, however, they have not been used for direct assessment of personal exposure to air pollution. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the first, and the only available, mobile phone-BROAD Life-equipped with air pollution sensors (PM2.5 and VOC), to answer the question whether this technology is a viable option in the quest of reducing the burden of disease to air pollution. We tested its performance, applicability and suitability for the purpose by subjecting it to varied concentrations of different types of aerosol particles (cigarette smoke, petrol exhaust and concrete dust) and formaldehyde under controlled laboratory conditions, as well as to ambient particles during field measurements. Six reference instruments were used in the study: AEROTRAK Optical Particle Counter (OPC model number 9306), DustTrak, Aerodynamic Particle Counter (APS), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS), Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) and Formaldehyde Analyser. Overall, we found that the phone's response was linear at higher particle number concentrations in the chamber, above 5 and 10 ?g m-3, for combustion and concrete dust particles, respectively, and for higher formaldehyde concentrations, making it potentially suitable for applications in polluted environments. At lower ambient concentrations of particles around 10 ug m-3 and 20 ?g m-3 for PM2.5 and PM10, respectively, the phone's response was below its noise level, suggesting that it is not suitable for ambient monitoring under relatively clean urban conditions. This mobile phone has a number of limitations that may hinder its use in personal exposure and for continuous monitoring. Despite these limitations, it may be used for comparative assessments, for example when comparing outcomes of intervention measures or local impacts of air pollution sources. It should be kept in mind, however, that a mobile phone measuring air quality alone cannot as such 'reduce the burden of disease to air pollution, as knowing ambient concentrations is only one of the building block in this quest. As long as individuals cannot avoid exposure e.g. in urban areas, knowing concentrations is not sufficient to reduce potential adverse effects. Yet, there are many situations and microenvironments, which individuals could avoid knowing the concentrations and also being aware of the risk caused by exposure to them. This includes for example to proximity to vehicle emissions, either for social purposes (e.g. street cafes) or exercising (e.g. walking or jogging along busy roads)or indoor environments affected by combustion emissions (smoking, candle burning, open fire).

Project description:Deprived communities in many cities are exposed to higher levels of outdoor air pollution, and there is increasing evidence of similar disparities for indoor air pollution exposure. There is a need to understand the drivers for this exposure disparity in order to develop effective interventions aimed at improving population health and reducing health inequities. With a focus on London, UK, this paper assembles evidence to examine why indoor exposure to PM2.5, NOx and CO may disproportionately impact low-income groups. In particular, five factors are explored, namely: housing location and ambient outdoor levels of pollution; housing characteristics, including ventilation properties and internal sources of pollution; occupant behaviours; time spent indoors; and underlying health conditions. Evidence is drawn from various sources, including building physics models, modelled outdoor air pollution levels, time-activity surveys, housing stock surveys, geographical data, and peer-reviewed research. A systems framework is then proposed to integrate these factors, highlighting how exposure to high levels of indoor air pollution in low-income homes is in large part due to factors beyond the control of occupants, and is therefore an area of systemic inequality.Policy relevanceThere is increasing public and political awareness of the impact of air pollution on public health. Strong scientific evidence links exposure to air pollution with morbidity and mortality. Deprived communities may be more affected, however, with limited evidence on how deprivation may influence their personal exposure to air pollution, both outdoors and indoors. This paper describes different factors that may lead to low-income households being exposed to higher levels of indoor air pollution than the general population, using available data and models for London (i.e. living in areas of higher outdoor air pollution, in poor-quality housing, undertaking more pollution-generating activities indoors and spending more time indoors). A systems approach is used to show how these factors lead to systemic exposure inequalities, with low-income households having limited opportunities to improve their indoor air quality. This paper can inform actions and public policies to reduce environmental health inequalities, considering both indoor and outdoor air.